posted November 06, 2007 09:47 PM              

you've never referred to man as a microcosm at LL before....ever
as soon as i explain this idea.....you say...

quote:

---

And God is the macrocosm.
Thank you for making my point.

---

this was never your point, ever before at LL
never once have you described man as a reflection of the whole, on a lower level of infinity..like a fractal....to you man is a machine with his role predetermined by God.....
but now you spin poetically about microcosms....lol...none of it having any bearing on determinism or free will..
paragraph after paragraph.....wow

then i bring up the holistic concept that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'...and immediately you try to usurp that position too....

quote:

---

And "emergent properties of complex systems"
is exactly what I am talking about.

---

except your own words give away what your position has always been....man is finite and limited..

quote:

---

An individual ought to be recognized as the sum of his parts.~~HSC

---

you're the one who insists that 'pure logic and reason' be used...and thats what ive done....ive shown that determinism cannot possibly be proven.....according to rules of logic itself....

many times you refer to God as transcendent....but in order to support your pet theory, you claim God cannot transcend logic....

godels theorem states that no system which must be constrained by its own internal logic is complete......this is the downfall of your mechanistic, materialistic God...
even a human, because he is self aware....can transcend pure logic, and show its severe limitations in expressing truth......

now you've completely abandoned logic and reason, explaining away your self contradictory statements thus....

quote:

---

When I speak of causes,
and even as God as First Cause,
I speak in the abstract.

This has never been my position,
except in an abstract and poetic sense.

Determinists speak of "causes and effects"
for the sake of convenience;

---

if thats the case, then i think this issue is decided.....

posted November 06, 2007 10:31 PM              

Everything is interconnected.
There are no real boundaries, only apparent ones.
Things shade imperceptibly into one another,
and the closer you look, the harder it is to find the dividing line.
Physicists prove this in the microcosmic world,
when they use stronger and stronger microscopes,
to reveal smaller and smaller worlds;
worlds inside of worlds inside of worlds.
Astronomers prove this in the macrocosmic world,
when they use stronger and stronger telescopes,
and instruments that reveal worlds encompassing worlds encompassing worlds.

posted November 06, 2007 10:35 PM              

governments dont advocate free will, or determinism
they advocate personal responsibility....
because otherwise, they would condition people
to become energy vampires...
spongeing off the blood, sweat and tears of those who strive.......
taking whatever they can get from the system, or those who love them
while contributing nothing themselves

and i dont need a reason to forgive either...
i always say, it isnt nescessary ....
but wouldnt it be completely rude of me, if i do someone wrong, not to ask for forgiveness.....??
but to say to myself instead....'it's irrelevant, because i'm not responsible for my actions...'

how inconsiderate.....

posted November 06, 2007 10:37 PM              

you dont look at men with microscopes

posted November 06, 2007 10:44 PM              

HSC expressed this thought with an analogy of the macrocosmic and microcosmic; the essence remains.

posted November 06, 2007 10:55 PM              

quote:

---

this was never your point, ever before at LL
never once have you described man as a reflection of the whole, on a lower level of infinity..like a fractal....to you man is a machine with his role predetermined by God.....

but now you spin poetically about microcosms....lol...none of it having any bearing on determinism or free will..
paragraph after paragraph.....wow

---

it's not necessary to be ultra-literal in this type of discussion.

universe = whole

posted November 06, 2007 11:01 PM              

zanya, do you have any belief?

posted November 06, 2007 11:05 PM              

quote:

---

i already read that...its close, but he's never said man is a microcosm of the universe,

the universe is a microcosm of God
you dont look at men with microscopes

---

you changed your words considerably, after i answered the original post you made.

it rather renders the rest of this conversation in a different light. it would perhaps be a courtesy to make note of such changes.

posted November 06, 2007 11:16 PM              

quote:

---

nor does he believe man is thus infinite....

---

i disagree.

quote:

---

Heart--Shaped Cross
Knowflake
Posts: 1888
From: 11/6/78 11:38am Boston, MA
Registered: Aug 2004
posted February 08, 2006 02:04 PM

I think all things are ordained by God, so to speak. I think there is a hierarchy of wills in the spiritual universe, and, to the extent that we are operating from the level of our personal egos, we are not at the summit. To imagine that I have free will would be, as I understand it, to imagine that I am omnipotent and omniscient, otherwise, wouldn't my behavior be determined by the level of knowledge and power I possess? So, it seems reasonable to conclude that, if we are to believe in free will, we ought to believe that we, as individuals, are all omniscient and omnipotent beings. This may be the intuitive reality, but, as I have said, it is not intellectually supported.

I do not deny that, at some very real level, I am one with the Infinite Will, but, as I percieve it, this would suggest that my will is determined by God's, not that my will determines the will of God. I think that observance of the former is what was once called humility, while observance of the latter is what was once called hubris.

I think there have been individuals who attained a level of self-mastery that allowed them to transcend themselves (and I think its almost certain that this potential would be strongly highlighted in the birthchart!), and become direct channels for the higher will of God. In a sense, they were then able to direct the will of God, but, only because they were united with God in Spirit, and, so, their purposes were not divergent from that will. So, while, on a certain level, I think it makes sense to say that we are all gods, there is no difference, etc., on another level, I think that someone like Jesus or Buddha had a right to claim authority, and to identify themselves with the power of the one and only truly free and divine will, while, someone like myself, if I claimed free will, would be "taking the lord's name in vain," because I would be making myself one with God, on the physical level of manifestation, while I am only really one with God (at this point in my karmic evolution) on a deeper, spiritual level.

---

posted November 06, 2007 11:19 PM              

quote:

---

i dont believe i edited anything after you posted....

---

posted November 06, 2007 11:21 PM              

Man is a finite entity, and therefore,
cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.--hsc

quite clear

posted November 06, 2007 11:25 PM            

---------------------------

Petron, LTT, Mirandee, AG,
and whomever it may concern:

I have made a solid effort to explain my philosophy,
and I am content with the depth of my sincerity,
and the structural integrity of my position.

I'm my worst critic,
and I'm proud of myself.
That's all that matters.
I dont need to prove anything to anyone else.

And its a good thing, too.
Because I would run myself ragged
trying to correct all the misunderstandings about me.
I have a higher purpose than that.

I believe in making a serious effort
to communicate my truth to others,
but, if I find that my voice falls on deaf ears,
time after time, what will induce me to waste my breath?
I should learn from experience to find another way.

Some have found pearls in my words,
and some have trampled my words underfeet.

So be it.

I can say no more.
I only repeat myself,
and, when it is something new,
you mistake me, and make me repeat that.

So its all me talking,
trying to correct misjudgments,
being sourly and endlessly misunderstood,
and criticized for taking care to explain, lol.
I'm not all broken up about it, although I think its unfortunate.

posted November 06, 2007 11:29 PM              

and thank you....
this has been interesting.....

when i get my new theorem peer reviewed, i will give you partial credit....

posted November 06, 2007 11:37 PM              

quote:

---

I think all things are ordained by God, so to speak. I think there is a hierarchy of wills in the spiritual universe, and, to the extent that we are operating from the level of our personal egos, we are not at the summit.

---

so much of what you have expressed here has been of great insight for me. i would not have read the book Divine Magic had i not seen the part of the hermetic teaching about the nature of determinism, free will and universal law. this was illuminating for me...and i made a direct connection to what you have been explaining. i had not read the Kybalion before, though it's one of Aselzion's favorite works...along with its association with the B.O.T.A. i always wished to understand this further...and you led me on that path.

right on brother....

posted November 07, 2007 02:39 AM              

I realize now that you answered my question in the post I referred to. I didn't need to ask you to re-state what you meant.

quote:

---

LTT,
So perhaps there is Free Will;
people just need to acquire a deeper
understanding of what this really means.

---

quote:

---

Well said. Yes;
people need to see that we are not free,
and that we only have "free will"
in the sense that
all the freedom of movement we have
is determined according to higher laws.

The people who need to understand, generally,
are the people who talk about "free will",
not the people who say it does not exist.

I'll be the first to tell you that I am not chained to a table
with my eyelids taped open and my mouth sown shut.
I can type on the keyboard, and do all sort of things.
"Wee, look at me. I'm excercising my freedom!"
Of course, all these behaviors are determined.
The reason I feel free is because my will
is not in conflict with God's will for me.
But watch;
as soon as I come up against a limitation which does not please me,
I am forced to take a closer look at my limitations.
The maze narrows and narrows until I make my choice;
the best choice I am capable of making.

I have the freedom to eat fast food,
because it was determined that,
in addition to the desire for fast food,
I have been given the other tools to get the fast food.
But do I have the freedom to eat health food?
Before I can have the freedom to eat health food,
I must have the desire to eat healthfood.
But if I am addicted to unhealthy foods,
ignorant of the benefits of healthfood,
and/or unconcerned with my heath
(i.e. ignorant of the benefits),
I cannot even desire healthfood,
so how can I be free to eath healthy,
and do what is best for me?
Choices, especially moral choices
(and all choices may be viewed from a moral perspective),
that require any real effort of will
must be ambivalent.
This suggests the conflicts within us,
which are always being resolved.
We should always encourage ourselves,
whenever we can, to be better,
thanking God for giving us this grace.
And we should remember to encourage others,
to reach for their own potential,
never forgetting that encouragement
may be the very thing that is needful,
the impetus without which their will
would lie paralyzed.

That we are all in this together,
and should take responsibility for one another,
picking up each other's slack, is important.
Nobody can be all things to all people.
We know this, and, yet,
we count other people's shortcomings, and forget our own.
We see where another person is making poor choices,
and we judge them, because, we, after all,
have no difficulty summoning the resources
and willpower to choose more wisely.
We say something like, "Just use your free will",
and we assume that everyone has the same opporunities
and freedoms which we take for granted.

That we should encourage one another to do our best
almost goes without saying.
I think there is a better way to encourage people
to take stock of their own resources and options,
and to try to help themselves with what they have,
than to tell them that they have free will.
We must remember that our encouragement is often needed,
and, perhaps, many other things as well.

A monkey sitting at a type writer
will never recreate the works of Shakespeare,
no matter how you encourage him
or assure him of his latent abilities.

quote:I can forgive those who are cruel through the realization that they have just forgotten who they truly are. But I can't and won't love the existence of cruelty in any dimension of Time......unless one day it can be totally transmuted.

So it is not within the power of your will to love this world.

Welcome to the club.

It takes work.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

quote:Is the ultimate DESTINY of humanity
to TRANSMUTE cruelty, hatred and suffering?

I do not know.
I suspect it is, and I hope it is.

But all I really know is that we have to try.

---

And I think that perhaps people have listened to you more than you realize. I didn't think I would see the day when you and Mirandee would get along.

posted November 07, 2007 03:22 AM              

For now I will leave it at this, not my words.

Introduction: The Problem of Free Will & Determinism

The problem of Free Will vs. Determinism has puzzled philosophers for thousands of years. It is a profound problem for without Free Will there can be no morality, no right and wrong, no good and evil. All our behaviours would be pre-determined and we would have no creativity or choice. Common sense (and most importantly, Darwinian Evolution) suggests that we do in fact have Free Will, that we can decide and determine our futures within the limits of physical reality. However, the only absolute way to solve this problem of Philosophy is to know what exists and how it is interconnected, i.e. True Knowledge of Reality.

Recent discoveries on the Properties of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) confirm that we can know and understand the physical reality of the world which we experience, and thus explain how we can have limited free will in a necessarily connected universe. (See links at the top of the page).

It is important to appreciate the difference between a Necessarily Connected Universe, which ours is, (due to Space and its interconnected wave-motions) and a Deterministic Universe which requires knowledge of the 'initial conditions' from which things, being necessarily connected, can then be determined.

Stated simply, an Infinite system can never be pre-determined. We live in a finite and 'Necessarily Connected' Universe, but because it is within an Infinite Space, and continually has waves flowing into it that have come from Infinity, they can never be pre-determined. This explains the uncertainty of Quantum Theory and that we can never exactly know where each successive In-Wave will meet at its wave-center 'particle', thus we can never exactly know both the future motion (momentum) and position of the ‘Particle’ (i.e. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle).

This is very important as it also explains why we can have limited free will, and thus live as moral creatures creating better futures for ourselves and our society (a very important thing). We should also emphasize that our free will is limited by this necessary connection of matter. We do not have the freedom to defy gravity and make ourselves float upwards, but within the constraints of necessary connection there are still many possible futures. We can choose to read this, or we can decide to stop reading it. Both are possible futures that obey the laws of physics and the necessary connections between things. Thus Spinoza is both right and wrong when he writes;

" There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. "(Spinoza, 1673)

His error was to not understand how lack of pre-determined knowledge in an infinite though necessarily connected system causes chance and limited free will. This is explained in more detail below.

Geoff Haselhurst

Limited Free Will in a Necessarily Connected Universe

Our Finite Spherical Universe within Infinite Space is Necessarily Connected but not Deterministic
It is very important to appreciate the difference between a Necessarily Connected Universe, which ours is, (as explained by the central Principle of the Wave Structure of Matter) and a Deterministic Universe which requires knowledge of the 'initial conditions' from which things, being necessarily connected, can then be determined.
As the WSM Cosmology explains, we exist in a finite and 'Necessarily Connected' Universe (due to the Properties of Space as a continuously connected wave medium), whereas Space itself must be Infinite (One thing existing is necessarily Infinite and Eternal). Thus our finite spherical universe continually has waves flowing into it that have come from Infinity, and can never be pre-determined (an infinite system cannot be predetermined). Thus Spinoza is correct when he writes;

"A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity." (Spinoza, 1673)

This also explains why even the Motion of planets is not determinable if we consider long periods of time, as Lerner explains;

The Cartesian idea of a set of universal laws which control natural occurrences exercised a powerful appeal in the succeeding centuries. Laplace, even as he developed his theory of a naturally evolving cosmos, endorsed the idea that, given the laws of gravitation, Newtonian mechanics, and the 'initial conditions' of the universe, every subsequent event not only can be accurately predicted, but is predetermined. The whole history of the universe, and of earth, is the inevitable operation of a set of eternal laws. In modern terms, Laplace believed that mathematical physics constitutes a Theory of Everything.

With absolute, infinite knowledge of the comet's velocity and infinite precision in calculation, its orbit is simply unpredictable. Yet this is not an effect of 'chance'. At all points the orbit was under precise control of the laws of gravitation as programmed into the simulation. The unpredictability came from the instability of the three-body interaction.

This doesn't mean we can't make useful predictions about the future. We can if the amount of time we try to predict is short enough. For unstable systems this time limit is the amount of time that passes between collisions of the particles that make up the system. For the comet this is a single orbit, but for a gas a tiny fraction of a second. We can, however, make useful statistical predictions; on average the comet will probably last about 150 orbits. And of course many systems are sufficiently close to stable that we can ignore their instability because the rate at which their instabilities grow is far longer than we need to worry about. For example, the orbits of the planets in our actual solar system appear to be unpredictable in excess of twenty million years from now. For all intents and purposes, in plotting a space mission the system is absolutely stable, predictable and reversible. (Lerner, 1991)

Determinism Vs. Free Will

The problem of whether Humans have free will or whether all our actions are pre-determined and our apparent free will is simply an illusion is profoundly important to Humanity, for the answer to this question will tell us whether we can determine our own future, and whether the concept of Morality actually exists (for if we had no free will, then there could be no such thing as morality!).
The solution is quite simple though and can be easily understood with the aid of the following example;

Let us take a normal pack of playing cards (52 cards - 13 Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, and Clubs) and I shall place the Ace of Hearts face down on the top of the pack.
Thus I am both necessarily connected to the Ace of Hearts (as I am to all matter in the universe) and I have pre-determined knowledge of the exact card, thus I can be certain that if I turn the card over it will be the Ace of Hearts. So we see that while I have complete knowledge of the system then there is no chance involved - the system is both necessarily connected and pre-determined.

Now let us further imagine that I place this pack of cards in front of someone else who has no knowledge of the fact that the Ace of Hearts is the top card. So while they are still necessarily connected to the top card (Ace of Hearts) they do not have pre-determined knowledge of this card, thus if I ask them to tell me which card is on top of the pack they only have a one in fifty two chance of guessing correctly. Thus we see how chance exists when we do not have pre-determined knowledge (even though we are still necessarily connected).

Further, in a necessarily connected but non determined universe, there are many possible futures (within the constraints of the properties of Space and the waves structure of matter - we can't flap our arms and fly!).

If we now apply this knowledge to the matter of brain and body (which is the cause of our human mind) we realise that while we are necessarily connected to the other matter in the universe, we can never have pre-determined knowledge of the motions of this other matter (as explained above due to the system being infinite) thus explaining how chance (due to lack of pre-determined knowledge) exists in the universe.

Hence evolution of our brain and mind can use this chance to allow us to creatively think of new and novel ideas and relationships that we can then remember, and then we can use chance again to select from these various chance relationships to determine actions. Now while this is a very simplified explanation of how our mind works, and there may be millions of ‘layers’ to these chance selections, each with various degrees of probabilities for selecting different outcomes, nonetheless the principles are true and do explain how lack of pre-determined knowledge in a necessarily connected Universe within an Infinite Space allows chance and limited ‘free will’.

A simple example of this process can be found when considering a game commonly found in fairs, where there is a clown's head with open mouth that is rotating backwards and forwards, and you must drop a ball and try and get it to land in a certain slot. Depending on the time that you drop the ball ultimately determines where it will land. But all options are possible, and if we use this chance (due to lack of knowledge, as explained above) to determine when the ball is dropped, then we realise that we are using chance to decide on the future of the universe.

Thus Spinoza is both right and wrong when he writes;

"There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. "(Spinoza, 1673)

His error was to not understand how lack of pre-determined knowledge in an infinite though necessarily connected system causes chance and limited free will.

Karl Popper also intuitively understood that there had to be some 'balance' between complete determinism (clocks) and complete disorder and chance (clouds) when he wrote;

What we need for understanding rational human behaviour - and indeed, animal behaviour - is something intermediate in character between perfect chance and perfect determinism - something intermediate between perfect clouds and perfects clocks. (Popper, 1975)

He was absolutely right, for a 'Necessarily Connected', but infinite and ‘Non-Determined’ universe allows us to have limited free will (based upon this lack of pre-determined knowledge which gives rise to chance).

posted November 07, 2007 03:27 AM              

David Hume

Why has the will an influence over the tongue and fingers, not over the heart or liver? (David Hume, 1737)

We learn the influence of our will from experience alone. And experience only teaches us, how one event constantly follows another; without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable. (David Hume, 1737)

The command of the mind over itself is limited, as well as its command over the body; and these limits are not known by reason, or any acquaintance with the nature of cause and effect, but only by experience and observation, as in all other natural events and in the operation of external objects. Our authority over our sentiments and passions is much weaker than that over our ideas; and even the latter authority is circumscribed within very narrow boundaries. (David Hume, 1737)

This self-command is very different at different times. A man in health possesses more of it than one languishing with sickness. We are more master of our thoughts in the morning than in the evening: Fasting, than after a full meal. (David Hume, 1737)

I shall say that I know with certainty that he is not to put his hand into the fire and hold it there till it be consumed: And this event, I think I can foretell with the same assurance, as that, if he throw himself out at the window, and meet with no obstruction, he will not remain a moment suspended in the air. (David Hume, 1737)

Necessity, according to the sense in which it is here taken, has never yet been rejected, nor can ever, I think, be rejected by any philosopher. It may only, perhaps, be pretended that the mind can perceive, in the operations of matter, some farther connexion between the cause and effect; and connexion that has not place in voluntary actions of intelligent beings. Now whether it be so or not, can only appear upon examination; and it is incumbent on these philosophers to make good their assertion, by defining or describing that necessity, and pointing it out to us in the operations of material causes.
It would seem, indeed, that men begin at the wrong end of this question concerning liberty and necessity, when they enter upon it by examining the faculties of the soul, the influence of the understanding, and the operations of the will. Let them first discuss a more simple question, namely, the operations of body and of brute unintelligent matter; and try whether they can there form any idea of causation and necessity, except that of a constant conjunction of objects, and subsequent inference of the mind from one to another. (David Hume, 1737)

By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. (David Hume, 1737)

It is universally allowed that nothing exists without a cause of its existence, and that chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real power which has anywhere a being in nature. But it is pretended that some causes are necessary, some not necessary. (David Hume, 1737)

.. liberty, when opposed to necessity, not to constraint, is the same thing as chance; which is universally allowed to have no existence. (David Hume, 1737)

Necessity may be defined in two ways, conformably to the two definitions of cause, of which it makes an essential part. It consists either in the constant conjunction of like objects, or in the inference of the understanding from one object to another. (David Hume)

Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil. (David Hume, 1737)

No contingency anywhere in the universe; no indifference; no liberty. While we act, we are, at the same time, acted upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of the world, who first bestowed motion on this immense machine, and placed all beings in that particular position, whence every subsequent event, by an inevitable necessity, must result. Human actions, therefore, either can have no moral turpitude at all, as proceeding from so good a cause; or if they have any turpitude, they must involve our Creator in the same guilt, while he is acknowledged to be their ultimate cause and author. (David Hume, 1737)

posted November 07, 2007 03:51 AM              

"Nothing makes one so dizzy as human reasoning, which sees everything from an earthly point of view, and does not allow illumination from above. Earthly reasoning is covered with mud. Therefore, we have need of streams from above, so that, when the mud has fallen away, whatever part of the reason is pure may be carried on high and may be thoroughly imbued with the lessons taught there. This takes place when we manifest both a well-disposed soul and an upright life."

- St. John Chrysostom
Homily 24 (John 2:23-3:4), A.D. 390 [/i]

HSC serves me well as a teacher because he challenges my faith and in so doing he causes me to seek those "streams from above" which St. John Chrysostom speaks of here in his quote. He causes me to lift my thoughts and soul to the spiritual and that is always welcomed and appreciated. Mainly because it helps my faith to grow. I find many people around LL that help me in the same way for the same reason.